You quoted: “Surrick ruled that Berg’s attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”
Then you mentioned it was a code that the judge thought Berg was right but that he wasn’t going to apply the law.
I disagree (just a little). :)
I believe it was a code that the judge thought Berg was right but that ..... he felt Berg’s CLAIM that he had a right to sue in that court was frivolous and not worthy of discussion.
I believe the judge was saying he felt Berg’s challenge here did not have standing, that he felt it was frivolous and not worthy of discussion THAT BERG COULD EVEN DO THIS IN THIS WAY.
Now, get me right here, I am very concerned we apparently do not have a way to check out a candidate’s qualifications, and I do not like it the judge threw this out. I believe Mr. Berg has taken on the best way he could find to challenge this, and I hope we all find a way to challenge Obama’s inability to qualify for the presidency of The US. I also wish Berg (and others) best wishes to find a way for our country to obtain legal protection of the office of our presidency (and not through this biased democrat, liberal congress we have right now who won’t do a thing except to help themselves and try to hurt the Republican party.)
The judge has a duty to explain why Berg was wrong. You obviously don't have experience with corrupt judges who want to protect their allies. Judges routinely ignore the well pleaded arguments and citations of parties when they want a particular result and to hell with the law. I've had personal experience with all of this on numerous occasions.